Re: ri_LockPKTuple misleading message - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:58 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 1:51 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 10:38 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > On 2026-04-25 20:59:50 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 20:42 Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 7:31 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
> > > > > I have a feeling we should also update ExecLockRows(), since the
> > > > > TM_Deleted branches in other places seem to use the wording
> > > > > "concurrent delete".
> > > > >
> > > > > cc andres since he was the original author of this code.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL_12_STABLE/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c#L230
> > > >
> > > > Ah, OK, then let's change both instances for consistency, unless Andres
> > > > remembers a reason not to.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Junwang for checking that.
> > >
> > > No, I can't see any reason for that.  I assume it was a copy & paste error,
> > > but it's hard to know this far back.
> >
> > Thanks for chiming in.
> >
> > Here is a patch to fix both instances.  I'll leave the ExecLockRows()
> > instances unchanged in the back-branches due to the lack of user
> > complaints.
>
> New version where I added a test case to the isolation suite that
> exercises ri_LockPKTuple().
>
> Will push barring objections.

Done.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote